FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Titan Support Systems Inc v Nguyen (No 2) [2015] FCA 359
Citation: Titan Support Systems Inc v Nguyen (No 2) [2015] FCA 359 Parties: TITAN SUPPORT SYSTEMS INC v MINH HOANG NGUYEN File number: NSD 504 of 2014 Judge: MURPHY J Date of judgment: 17 April 2015 Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – failure to comply with court order – whether application for contempt complies with requirements of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – endorsement on order pursuant to rule 41.06 – requirements of service pursuant to rule 41.07 Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Cases cited: Ali v Collection Point Pty Ltd (2010) 274 ALR 618
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v INFO4PC.com Pty Ltd (2002) 121 FCR 24
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1717
Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573
Hughes v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 319
In the Marriage of Davis (1976) 26 FLR 55
Mason v MWREDC Ltd [2012] FCA 1083
Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union and Others (1985) 10 FCR 385
Plastec Australia Pty Ltd v Plumbing Solutions and Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2012] FCA 657
Re Modern Woodcraft Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (1997) 75 FCR 245
Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2006) 152 FCR 129
Titan Support Systems Inc v Minh Hoang Nguyen [2014] FCA 884
Viner and Others v Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (1981) 38 ALR 550
Windsurfing International Inc v Sailboards Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 19 FCR 110Date of hearing: 13 April 2015 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 35 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr P Bushby of Loke Bushby International Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 504 of 2014
BETWEEN: TITAN SUPPORT SYSTEMS INC
ApplicantAND: MINH HOANG NGUYEN
Respondent
JUDGE:
MURPHY J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 APRIL 2015
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The orders of Justice Perry made 15 August 2014 be varied by adding the endorsement required pursuant to r 41.06 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (“the Rules”).
2.For the avoidance of doubt having regard to Orders 2 and 3 of the orders of Justice Perry made 15 August 2014, pursuant to r 41.09 of the Rules the District Registrar of the New South Wales Registry of this Court is empowered to sign all necessary documents to give effect to the orders of the Court to:
(a)take all necessary steps to transfer to the Applicant or its nominee the business name “Titan Support Australia” as soon as practicable; and
(b)take all necessary steps to transfer to the Applicant or its nominee the domain name “titanaustralia” as soon as practicable.
3.The Applicant is directed to provide a copy of this order to the Respondent, doing so by letters and email to the Respondent's addresses set out in Order 2 of the orders of Justice Perry dated 11…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Titan Support Systems Inc v Nguyen (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] FCA 359
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of Federal Court Rules 41.06, 41.07, and 41.08 in the context of contempt proceedings. The court had to assess whether the application for contempt complied with the procedural requirements, specifically whether the relevant order had the appropriate endorsement and whether it was served in a manner that complied with the rules. The court also needed to decide if the alleged contemnor had been given a specific charge with sufficient particularity to allow a proper response.
The court found that rule 42.12 requires an application alleging contempt to be accompanied by a statement of charge that specifies the contempt with particularity, along with affidavits on which the applicant intends to rely. The authorities confirm that the alleged contemnor must be given a specific charge, including the acts, matters, and things alleged as the foundation of the charge, and be given an opportunity to answer the charge. The court held that rules 41.06, 41.07, and 41.08 preclude enforcement by committal, sequestration, or other punishment for contempt unless the orders are personally served or otherwise notified as provided under the rules. The court determined that the application complied with these requirements and varied the orders accordingly.
The final orders of the court included adding the required endorsement to the orders of 15 August 2014, empowering the District Registrar to transfer the business name and domain name to the applicant, directing the applicant to provide a copy of the order to the respondent, and adjourning the matter for directions. The court's decision ensured that the procedural requirements for contempt applications were met, providing clarity and guidance on the enforcement of court orders in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The orders of Justice Perry made 15 August 2014 be varied by adding the endorsement required pursuant to r 41.06 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (“the Rules”).
2. For the avoidance of doubt having regard to Orders 2 and 3 of the orders of Justice Perry made 15 August 2014, pursuant to r 41.09 of the Rules the District Registrar of the New South Wales Registry of this Court is empowered to sign all necessary documents to give effect to the orders of the Court to:
(a) take all necessary steps to transfer to the Applicant or its nominee the business name “Titan Support Australia” as soon as practicable; and
(b) take all necessary steps to transfer to the Applicant or its nominee the domain name “titanaustralia” as soon as practicable.
3. The Applicant is directed to provide a copy of this order to the Respondent, doing so by letters and email to the Respondent's addresses set out in Order 2 of the orders of Justice Perry dated 11 February 2015.
4. The matter be adjourned for directions on 26 May 2015 at 9:30 am.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Rule 42.12 provides that an application alleging contempt must be accompanied by a statement of charge specifying the contempt with particularity and the affidavits on which the person making the charge intends to rely to prove the charge. The authorities provide that the alleged contemnor must be given a specific charge, including the acts, matters and things alleged as the foundation of the charge, and be given an opportunity to answer the charge: see Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573 at 581; In the Marriage of Davis (1976) 26 FLR 55 at 56 (Asche J); Ali v Collection Point Pty Ltd (2010) 274 ALR 618 at [16] (Gordon J).CONSIDERATION In Mason v MWREDC Ltd [2012] FCA 1083 at [44]-[50] (“MWREDC”) Greenwood J considered the operation of the former Federal Court Rules and the present Rules in relation to contempt applications, and I generally agree with his Honour’s view. Order 37 r 2(1) provided that, subject to the Rules, an order shall not be enforced by committal or sequestration unless the order is personally served on the person bound, and where the order requires the person bound to do an act within a specified time, the order is served before that time expires. Order 37 r 2(3) of the former rules provided:An order or a certified or office copy thereof served under this rule must bear a notice (naming the persons concerned) that the person served is liable to imprisonment or sequestration of property if:(a)where the order requires the person bound to do an act within a specified time, the person bound refuses or neglects to do the act within that time; or(b)where the order requires the person bound to abstain from doing an act, the person bound disobeys the order. However the prohibition on enforcement by committal or sequestration in O 37 r 2(1) did not extend to precluding a finding of contempt otherwise open and the imposition of a fine. It only precluded committal or sequestration: see Windsurfing International Inc v Sailboards Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 19 FCR 110 (Burchett J), Re Modern Woodcraft Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (1997) 75 FCR 245 at 252–253 (Lindgren J) and Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2006) 152 FCR 129 at [67] (North, Goldberg and Weinberg JJ). Rules 41.06, 41.07 and 41.08 of the Rules are in different terms to former O 37 r 2 but to similar effect except, in my view, they preclude enforcement by committal, sequestration or other punishment for contempt unless the orders are personally served or otherwise notified as provided under the Rules. The scheme of the Rules is that:(a)an order must be entered if it is to be enforced – r 39.31(a);(b)if an order requires the person to do, or not to do, an act or thing and the consequences of failure may be committal, sequestration or punishment for contempt the order must carry an endorsement to that effect – r 41.06;(c)an order of the type set out in r 41.06 must be served personally on the person who is bound to do, or not to do the act or thing within the time mentioned in the order, or if no time is mentioned, within a time that would allow the person to comply with the order – r 41.07(1); (d)however, if the person was present when the judgment was pronounced or the order was made, or was notified of the terms of the order orally, by telephone or electronically, the person is taken to have been served with the order of the time the person heard or was notified of it – r 41.07(2); (e)if a person then fails to comply with an order that party may apply to the Court for orders for committal or sequestration of the person’s property – r 41.08(1); and(f)if the person in default is a corporation or organisation no application may be made for the committal of an officer of the corporation or organisation unless the officer had been personally served with an order carrying the endorsement required under r 41.07 (unless the officer was present when the order was made or was notified of the order in accordance with r 41.07(2)) – r 41.08(3).